The idea that work only exists because society deems it necessary is not a new one. Many philosophers, economists, and sociologists have weighed in on the topic over the years. Some argue that work is an essential part of the human experience, while others argue that it is a necessary evil, only done to make ends meet.
One proponent of the idea that work is a necessary evil is the French philosopher Bertrand Russell. In his 1932 essay “In Praise of Idleness,” Russell argues that the modern world has far too much work and that it is preventing people from living fulfilling lives. He writes, “The human character has changed for the worse in the last few centuries. The machine has made life easier, but it has not made men happier. The chief problem in the world today is how to reduce the amount of work.”
On the other hand, economist Milton Friedman argues that work is a fundamental part of human nature and that without it, people would become bored and unproductive. In his book “Capitalism and Freedom,” Friedman writes, “The human desire to improve one’s material well-being is an important force leading to economic growth and progress.”
In today’s world, there is no doubt that work is often seen as a necessary evil. Many people work jobs that they dislike simply to make ends meet, while others are stuck in jobs that they view as pointless or unnecessary. This is especially true in the age of automation, where many jobs that were once done by humans are now being done by machines.
However, there is also a growing movement that argues that work should not be viewed as a necessary evil. Instead, people should be able to choose the work that they do and only do the jobs that they are passionate about. This movement is often associated with the idea of universal basic income, which would provide people with a basic level of income regardless of whether they work or not.
Proponents of universal basic income argue that it would free people from the drudgery of work and allow them to focus on the things that they truly care about. As the economist Guy Standing writes in his book “The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class,” “Basic income would enable people to pursue the things that are truly important to them, such as family, education, and community, rather than being forced to work in jobs that they dislike.”
Critics of universal basic income argue that it would be too expensive to implement and that it would discourage people from working. They also argue that it would lead to a decrease in productivity and economic growth.
However, proponents of universal basic income argue that it would actually increase productivity and economic growth. They argue that people who are able to choose the work that they do are more likely to be productive and engaged in their jobs.
In conclusion, there is a debate over whether work is a necessary evil or an essential part of the human experience. While some argue that work is a necessary evil that should be minimized, others argue that work is an important part of human nature and that people should be able to choose the work that they do. The idea of universal basic income is gaining traction as a solution that would allow people to choose the work they do while still providing them with a basic level of income.
Sources:
- Russell, Bertrand. “In Praise of Idleness.” In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays. London: Routledge, 2004.
- Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
- Standing, Guy. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011.
